Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Matthias

The Bible (New Mini-Series)

72 posts in this topic

There are a lot of inaccuracies right off the bat

That would be... fitting. The Bible contains many itself right off the bat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When speaking of ancient people, we commonly mix scripture with history. But lets separate them for a second.

The scripture tells us that the Hebrew people originated in and around what is now southern Israel and moved to Egypt at the behest of Jacob to escape famine. Meaning they originated in what is now Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia.

In the Bible there are many references to how the Hebrew/Israelites were often mistaken for or looked like Egyptians.

Acts 21:38 Paul mistaken for an Egyptian

Exodus 2:16-19 The priest of Midian speaking to his daughters about Moses watering their flock.

Matthew 2:13 Angel of the Lord tells Joseph to take Jesus and Mary and hide in Egypt.

So now to history. There is no record of who the Iraelites were until after the Exodus, but the wars fought along the way to Jerusalem are well documented.

Now when people think of a middle eastern man or woman they think of what they see today on tv. Light-brown skinned people with generally straight black hair. We agree that they were in Egypt and that they looked like Egyptians or middle easterners but how did the people of the area describe themselves

post-11341-0-38418300-1362328523_thumb.jpost-11341-0-99752800-1362328529_thumb.jpost-11341-0-30845900-1362328536_thumb.jpost-11341-0-03438900-1362328546_thumb.jpost-11341-0-90768800-1362328553_thumb.j

These are all pictures from the time of Seti I who is commonly recognized as the pharoah of the old testament. Now the Egyptians had a great ability to mix colors and could have easily described themselves as lighter skinned people if they so chose as evidenced by the the instances of both very dark and very light people throughout all their artwork. But when they describe themselves the use that deep brown tone. Post Roman Empire saw a different mix of colors in the artwork.

Below is an ancient Sumerian depictian of a man and a bullpost-11341-0-00367400-1362329190_thumb.j

That was how the middle easterners described themselves.

Below you will find a picture of a modern Egyptian from the lower(northern) Egypt.post-11341-0-30948300-1362330121_thumb.j

Below are pictures of modern Ethiopians and modern Egyptians that do not live near Cairo.

post-11341-0-99067000-1362329722_thumb.jpost-11341-0-50743100-1362329733_thumb.jpost-11341-0-89562400-1362329751_thumb.j

Think about it. It is commonly accepted that Black people are black because of a reaction to the Sun causing an increase in melanin. Well the middle east is among the hottest and most sun drenched place on earth. It would not be possible for a lighter skinned race to survive without relatively modern comforts or ways to protect themselves from the sun. They would burn up and likely die out from cancer in just a few generations.

I agree with most of what you said. (When I talk on the Israelite origins, I usually go back to Abraham, and he came out of Iran.) Certainly we know that Nubia (which I mistakenly said was modern day Ethiopia, but is modern day Sudan) even took control over Egypt. Yet the Israelites wouldn't have had a sub-saharan skin tone. I believe they would have had a dark brown complexion like this...

A_Bedouin_Arab_137.jpg

Yet for this film, Samson is portrayed like this...

Bible_Samson-and-mother1.jpg

Now I don't know 100%, but if I were a betting man, I would have to say Samson didn't look like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you said. (When I talk on the Israelite origins, I usually go back to Abraham, and he came out of Iran.) Certainly we know that Nubia (which I mistakenly said was modern day Ethiopia, but is modern day Sudan) even took control over Egypt. Yet the Israelites wouldn't have had a sub-saharan skin tone. I believe they would have had a dark brown complexion like this...

A_Bedouin_Arab_137.jpg

Yet for this film, Samson is portrayed like this...

Bible_Samson-and-mother1.jpg

Now I don't know 100%, but if I were a betting man, I would have to say Samson didn't look like this.

Not to be difficult, but as the first one is a painting I cant really see much difference in the skin tone. But in fairness I recognize the point you are making and the show has definitely demonstrated a lack of concern for the skin tone of the characters. I will say this though, of all the other people in the series at least he is dark enough to have actually survived in the area during the time period. and his hair is in locks which is often used to describe Samsons hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you said. (When I talk on the Israelite origins, I usually go back to Abraham, and he came out of Iran.) Certainly we know that Nubia (which I mistakenly said was modern day Ethiopia, but is modern day Sudan) even took control over Egypt. Yet the Israelites wouldn't have had a sub-saharan skin tone. I believe they would have had a dark brown complexion like this...

Whether he was from Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, his skin tone would likely have been quite dark. Much darker than what I think you believe. The further away from Rome you get the darker the complexion gets until you get to India which is in reverse to what would be an expected trend if people migrated from Africa. But once again those previously under the rule of the Romans are lighter.

Now about the subsaharan skin-tone. There really isn't one. Outside of Roman influence yet still north of the Sahara you will find people that run the gamet of even the darkest of skin tones. IOT tell the difference between the ethnicities you must look at other traits like, facial shape, hair and nose characteristics.

For example West Africans (post-11341-0-54171500-1362341137_thumb.jpost-11341-0-26286500-1362341142_thumb.jpost-11341-0-84153800-1362341146_thumb.jpost-11341-0-63809600-1362341153_thumb.jpost-11341-0-45025600-1362341162_thumb.jor what most westerners attribute as sub-saharan Africans)

and East Africans (which includes upper(southern) Egypt and Northern Sudan both of which is above the Saharan)post-11341-0-76108700-1362341270_thumb.jpost-11341-0-75539900-1362341277_thumb.jpost-11341-0-98127000-1362341288_thumb.jpost-11341-0-44358000-1362341298_thumb.jpost-11341-0-65940200-1362341305_thumb.j there is no skin tone difference

Now outside of Africa

India being the furthest you can get and still be technically "middle east" should serve as a basis to for what should be considered the "lightest" a middle easterner would be.

(note: 100's of years of British colonization saw a cultural shift to seek out the lightest mates thus creating an upper middle class that is considerably lighter than the rest of the population. IOT to find the true ancestral skin tone without focused breeding you should focus on the middle to lower income people.)post-11341-0-58226200-1362342450_thumb.jpost-11341-0-36242800-1362342459_thumb.j

And I want to add this one for a little perspective.

post-11341-0-67348300-1362342554_thumb.j

Remember that something like 95% of the natives in America were killed off, but some pictures of the originals still survived and several of them show people that are quite dark. I dont mean to imply that they are African, merely to highlight the vastly more common dark skin tone as opposed to lighter ones during the ancient world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good and interesting finds guys. I do hope that the skin color of Jesus isn't a dealbreaker for anyone. I mean if so that's racist.

That is why the bible does a great job of making the emphasis on Jesus' life and nothing external. Except for one passage in Isiah where it sas Jesus appearance wasn't such that was disticintive in any way. And that's how it should be. I have zero issue with Jesu being olive skinned or much darker. I also have zero issues with a blue eyed guy playing Jesus.

Where I have isues is when the correct details etc get creative licensed out and the true spirit and thrust of the message gets lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be difficult, but as the first one is a painting I cant really see much difference in the skin tone. But in fairness I recognize the point you are making and the show has definitely demonstrated a lack of concern for the skin tone of the characters. I will say this though, of all the other people in the series at least he is dark enough to have actually survived in the area during the time period. and his hair is in locks which is often used to describe Samsons hair.

Here's a couple of photographs with the complexion I have in mind...

Tarrabin%20Bedouin%20hospitality.jpg

5027987-bedouin-talking-by-phone.jpg

52-bedouin-girl-yes11.jpg

With also darker tones as well. Yet we agree, in fact Egpyt was literally a mix of society as a whole.

Good and interesting finds guys. I do hope that the skin color of Jesus isn't a dealbreaker for anyone. I mean if so that's racist.

That is why the bible does a great job of making the emphasis on Jesus' life and nothing external. Except for one passage in Isiah where it sas Jesus appearance wasn't such that was disticintive in any way. And that's how it should be. I have zero issue with Jesu being olive skinned or much darker. I also have zero issues with a blue eyed guy playing Jesus.

Where I have isues is when the correct details etc get creative licensed out and the true spirit and thrust of the message gets lost.

I agree with what your saying, and I'm not saying God couldn't use a mini-series like this to encourage believers to look into their faith and be excited. Nor that God couldn't use it to reach the world with His message. Yet nothing would bring about more excitement in a believer, than to know more about the origin of their faith. The full origin. I bet you if they had people of dark skinned, middle-eastern descent playing these roles, there would be many Christians (most Christians by the way are very traditional, that is in the traditions of western Christianity) who would have a hard time watching it. If we saw a portrait of an east asian Jesus, people would have a problem with that. It would be the same if we had a portrait of the more accurate, dark brown skinned Jesus.

Yet with all that aside, it would be better to portray Jesus as accurate as possible in terms of how He look. It stregnthens us to know the culture, so we can understand the terminology within the Bible. It also brings us together, because there are many churches that are pretty much segregated. Yes, my Savior is of middle-eastern descent, so I have no problems hanging out with by brethren who are middle-eastern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a couple of photographs with the complexion I have in mind...

With also darker tones as well. Yet we agree, in fact Egpyt was literally a mix of society as a whole.

I am curious to know where the people pictured are from. I purposefully left out Egyptians from lower (northern) Egypt and middle easterners that fell within the old Roman Empire. My reasoning is that there is no way to prove that they are not descendants of Romans as opposed to ancient Egyptians. You can not possibly believe that a skin tone that light could have originated in an Area that receives that much sun? No other desert in the world has native light skinned people. Why would this be any different. This includes the Artic (Inuit) and the the ancient inhabitants of Siberia both of which qualify as a desert and receive inordinate amounts of solar rays thus activating the production of melanin. I am not dismissing the people in the photograph, they may in fact be descendants of the original groups of the area but it is doubtful that they look like them. Most black Americans trace at least a part of their ancestry to Europe (average of 22% heritage) as does a large portion of white Americans trace a portion of their history to Native americans or Africa. But I wouldn't use a black man to represent ancient Europeans no matter what his DNA said his ancestors were.

I agree with what your saying, and I'm not saying God couldn't use a mini-series like this to encourage believers to look into their faith and be excited. Nor that God couldn't use it to reach the world with His message. Yet nothing would bring about more excitement in a believer, than to know more about the origin of their faith. The full origin. I bet you if they had people of dark skinned, middle-eastern descent playing these roles, there would be many Christians (most Christians by the way are very traditional, that is in the traditions of western Christianity) who would have a hard time watching it. If we saw a portrait of an east asian Jesus, people would have a problem with that. It would be the same if we had a portrait of the more accurate, dark brown skinned Jesus.

Yet with all that aside, it would be better to portray Jesus as accurate as possible in terms of how He look. It stregnthens us to know the culture, so we can understand the terminology within the Bible. It also brings us together, because there are many churches that are pretty much segregated. Yes, my Savior is of middle-eastern descent, so I have no problems hanging out with by brethren who are middle-eastern.

I wish this was posted in the one I made earlier asking this question. But in light of the conversations going on over there I am inclined to agree with that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys, with all due respect, don't major in the minors here. when some of the disciples approached Paul about some groups preaching in Jesus' name but weren't part of the original 12 etc, he goes whether with false motives or pure, at least Christ is being preached.

Paul understood the big picture and what was most important. by no means is there anything wrong with understanding the culture of Jesus to get a good picture of him. but what he said and what he did stands paramount to his skin color or the clothes that he wore.

Jesus himself was superb at knowing how to discern not only right and wrong issues, but what is best in handling something. at times, looking at things from a right or wrong lense can paint one into a corner. but looking at it from a what is best perspective can be more productive.

if you want to do some homework and really stir the pot AND make a much more significant impact, let's talk about why we STILL have churches in 2013 that have either just one race or one socio economic background. i'm pretty certain those congregations wouldn't like many of Jesus' sermons on unity and forgiveness and brotherhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want to do some homework and really stir the pot AND make a much more significant impact, let's talk about why we STILL have churches in 2013 that have either just one race or one socio economic background. i'm pretty certain those congregations wouldn't like many of Jesus' sermons on unity and forgiveness and brotherhood.

agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the preferred complexion to guyz here is a bible where Halle Berry and Lenny Kravitz is cast. Otay.

When Jesus was eluding the Roman soliders he ran off in the city and blended in with the crowd...which was not full of guys that look like The Allman Brothers.

Sorry if Sampson is cast too ethnic for your tastes.

..and now deep thoughts by the Tinderbox Bible enthuisiasts "I agree that Jesus and the other characters of the bible are darker But maybe an OLIVE! or a REALLY LIGHT BROWN ONLY! Any darker and they are a painting in the show "Good Times". ...and we cant have that. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Cam will get the calls.  The hits to Cam head was too much of a talking point in a negative manner towards the NFL last year.  The discussion on the hits to his head were part of the reason this rule change was made.  NFL tried to paint the picture that Cam was being treated the same as other QBs while coming up with new ways to say he wasn't protected by the rule when an obvious miss call was made.  Ex. wrapping technique when hit low in the pocket.  Posture when hit in the pocket in the head.  Then this offseason they change the rule to make it look like they were proactive in protecting players.  Cam will get the calls and they will toot their own horn saying how the change in the rule is working.
    • I would die with a smile on my face.
    • God I hope that's a smokescreen comment.